# C_2018319EN.01002101.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/21

---

Action brought on 10 July 2018 — American Airlines/Commission

(Case T-430/18)

(2018/C 319/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: American Airlines, Inc. (Fort Worth, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Poitras, Solicitor, J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Wileur, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Grandfathering Approval Decision (Decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018);

| — | order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and any interveners in support of the Commission to pay the costs; and

| — | making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

making any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that that the European Commission committed both errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in adopting decision C(2018) 2788 of 30 April 2018 in which the Commission determined that Delta was entitled to acquire grandfathering rights over the slots made available by American Airlines under the commitments submitted in Case M.6607 (the ‘Commitments’).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.
  The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in applying the wrong legal standard for the acquisition of grandfathering rights under the Commitments.

The applicant submits that in assessing whether Delta had made ‘appropriate use’ of the slots pursuant to the Commitments, the Commission decided that the only analysis to be undertaken was to verify that Delta was not in a situation of ‘misuse’. The applicants further puts forward that, contrary to the Commission’s position, an examination of the wording, context and objective of the Commitments leads to the conclusion that ‘absence of misuse’ is not relevant, and that the correct interpretation of the concept of ‘appropriate use’ in the Commitments would have required the Commission to verify whether the use of the slots was ‘in accordance with the bid’ that Delta formally submitted to receive the slots.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.
  The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in determining that Delta complied with the ‘appropriate use’ requirement.

The applicant submits that since Delta chose to depart from its bid, the Commission would have been required to determine whether this departure and the ultimate level of usage of the slots could be accepted taking into account relevant economic evidence and analysis to ensure competition and therefore consumer benefits were maximized.

---